Dev blog: Update To Recommended Specification

Sure thing, please note that I’m giving specifics for the memory and storage but those are not affecting performance in a measurable way within our tests. The main components we measure for performance are CPU and GPU which is why we specifically list those in the official recommended specification.

System 1:
CPU: INTEL Core i7-7700 3.6GHz (Kaby Lake)
GPU: NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1060 6144mb gddr5
MEMORY: 16GB DDR4 (PC4-25600 running at 3200mhz)
STORAGE: 1TB SSD (Sequential Read: 540Mbps, Sequential Write: 520Mbps)

System 2:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 eight core 1700 3.70 GHz
GPU: AMD Radeon RX 580 Dual 4096MB GDDR5
MEMORY: 16GB DDR4 (PC4-25600 running at 3200mhz)
STORAGE: 1TB SSD (Sequential Read: 540Mbps, Sequential Write: 520Mbps)

Hope this answers your questions. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I do not see the EVE ONLINE client using the horsepower that is being recommended, even at highest settings.

Are you actually planning on using excess resources for visual gimmicks/whatnots ?

Why do you recomend 16GB RAM for a 32Bit software which can only address 4GB max?

That makes no sense at all.

1 Like

Already asked that - replay was

Something something soon™ dev blog.

1 Like

So - I have no issue with technical currency; in fact I think its essential that you have a technology roadmap and act to both take advantage of new capabilities and ultimately deprecate old ones.

My issue here is timing. Why would you announce in late May a shift to your recommended system requirements that takes effect 1 week later? People are constantly buying/refreshing/upgrading equipment. If EVE is something you do a lot (hint - from a CCP perspective that would be a “good thing”), then that is a factor in your buying process. CCP had to know a change was coming long before this announcement; why wouldn’t CCP share the roadmap at a high level so that your playerbase knows whats coming?

This is a little thing that will only affect a few players (and yes I am one as I just refreshed equipment within the last month), but its symptomatic of a greater malaise - effective information to and engagement with the player base.

Its really quite disappointing when an opportunity to do something simple and useful is missed.

Currently running a


But with the recommended settings will set me back a grand.
when all i can afford is a

Why does anything decent cost a bloody grand, my amiga 500+ with a meg upgrade cost me a grand, its always a grand. Yeah i get it new features etc etc. I’ll start stashing £’s away god damn it. Rant over.
Fly Safe guys. o7

1 Like

That does make me curious. Do you guys still maintain insights into ratio’s of desktop/laptop client usage?

To be honest, I haven’t played EVE on a desktop environment in a decade. Putting some things together it does make me wonder whether the indicated path might not be a bit out of step with the curve of mobile pc gaming (in comparison to the curve of desktop pc gaming)?

Dysrekt one might say.
Hang in there brother, one hell of game and career choice for our breed.

1 Like

What you should take away from this is that iMacs and MacBooks are not good for gaming, not that CCP is unreasonable.

2 Likes

Eve actually scales surprisingly nicely with hardware.
Maxed out on an i7 and a 1070 she goes well past 144 comfortably at 1080p and,
Hell you can have like 3 clients maxed at that and still have all the frames.

1 Like

I understand that Macs are not optimized when it comes to gaming. I can live with that to some extent… but, it is frustrating when a company says they offer a Mac client (in a wine bundle of all things) and then go 6-12 months without saying anything to that small collection of players while they all suffer from the lack of optimization.

See, and that is why I am wondering why the recommended setup would be so modern. They must have something up their sleeves, otherwise it would be like recommending wasting money.

I seriously doubt it.
We already know from past presentations and dev posts here on forums that 64-bit client is in the works. So this might be related to new recommended RAM requirements.
HD textures on the other hand, look more and more like a pipe dream as time goes by.

This. Also, “i7” just refers to Intel’s top-of-the-product-line chip, and they use it to mean everything from low-power dual-core mobile chips to 10-core enthusiast desktop chips. A better way to say this would be something along the lines of “quad-core with hyperthreading” or something along those lines.

That’s fairly cheap for a decent gaming PC, actually.

“Cheap” is a subjective concept, and said recommended setting was fairly less expensive two years ago.

Because of the junk called “crypto-currency”, GPU prices went up recently. I wonder for the Geforce 1060, but my actual Geforce 1070 went from 340 € (great opportunity) to 470 €/520 €… It is probably the first time in IT history that an equipement cost more with time while in sale…

For the same reason, my 24 Gb of DDR 3 costed me 140 € few years ago. I won’t try to check the price for the same size in DDR 4 again, last time I almost got an heart attack. I think it was more than 300 €…

A big difference who could help to buy a bigger SSD or anything else, and I didn’t speak about the CPU and the rest. I think that right now is still not the time to upgrade. Better wait a year if possible, and hope that the… external events disappear and so prices return to nomal.

1 Like

Well, yes, but you can make a decent gaming PC for about a 1000€, and it is relatively speaking, cheap. That’ll run most recent titles with high or even so-called ultra-settings for several years to come. If you want 144Hz 300fps 8K gaming experience for the latest game and terabyte SSD’s, well, that’s where things start getting really expensive…

Yeah the cryptocurrency mining trend blows, and 'specially GPU prices seem to fluctuate a lot. I got myself a “budget” GPU, the 1050 Ti, and the price even on that seems to have gone up since.
Another thing that seems to also sail around is the price of memory and SSD’s, it wasn’t too long ago I think that those were relatively cheap, but apparently memory prices have taken a hike recently… When I built this PC 6, soon to be 7 years ago RAM was dirt cheap and why I got piles of the stuff I never really fully utilize.

Moving Eve to a multicore-friendly code base should be accomplished before you start telling us to buy more hardware.

I got one core melting and seven idling. Why?

2 Likes

Really 16 GB of RAM? Really? Your recommended hardware requirements are close to those found in AAA titles. Do you really think EVE graphics is even close to look similar as in current top-notch industry experience? EVE graphics is quite basic and that is it. That is perfectly fine because massive on-line multiplayer games are often played by people in possession of low-tier computers (often business-line laptops).

So now what? The gap between minimum and recommended requirements is ridiculous atop of continuous DX9 support. Maybe those 16 GB of RAM feature is intended to attract more retards running 30-40 game clients simultaneously? Multi-boxing for the win?

Your dev-team has really a lot bugs to fix instead of trying to show the World “new” AAA title running on 15 year old 32-bit game engine without multi-core support. That is stupid!

2 Likes

Recommended, not required. There is a difference. Recommended if you want to experience all the maximum eye-candy in the newest area, Abyssal Deadspace. For now minimum requirements have not changed. I honestly don’t believe you’ll suddenly need 16Gb of RAM in High, low or null. You can still manage with the bare minimum that is 2Gb, and honestly unless your computer is 10+ years old it probably should have at least 4-6Gb of RAM by default.